Here in Massachusetts starts another lawsuit. It was on the 10 o' clock news tonight. A 2nd grade class was told by the teacher to bring in a book on christmas. All of the students brought in a book, and this one girl brought in a book with jesus in it. The teacher was having the students read the book outloud in class. The child started to read her book but the teacher told her to stop because of the jesus parts. The child didn't understand why she couldn't read the book, and the parents got angree over the 1st amendment right. Now they are suing the school. Why do people sue over something so silly? Are we all that money hungry these days?

I got in a rear end accident last year. I was going slightly downhill on a bridge in ice and a snow storm. I rear ended a guy because the woman infront of him stopped for the wrong crosswalk when the light went on. There were two crosswalks about 50 feet apart. She slammed on her brakes, but she was on level ground. The guy behind her stopped and I couldn't. I swerved to try to miss him but I caught him and push him into the woman infront. She got hit enough to break a couple tail lights. She claimed no injuries at the scene and a few days later decided she could get some money so she sued.

What is it with people suing everyone else now?



Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster American Thunder Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.


Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Superduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Top speed is 65mph, Go Baby Go!

 

My friend had something like that. The people slammed on their breaks and my friend wasn't watching and he hit their rear-end about 15 mph in his Toyota. Their bumper was a bit dented and my friends car had a TINY dent. A dent so small you actually had to get up close and squint to see it. They claimed no injuries at the time and later they tried to sue my friend. It didn't get to court though I think cause the damage was inspected and it was decided the people were idiots and it wasn't anything they could sue over.

 

Try owning your own business with employees.

I am constantly aware of potential lawsuits. Even if they don't succeed I am still out at least $1500. for the lawyer to write even 1 letter!

When on two wheels-
FXSTC
Mesa- AZ

 

I always park my van in a pull-thru space, or back in, so I don't have to back out. The one time I pull in and get ready to leave, I was backing out, this lady stops right behind me and I just tap her door with the spare tire, and cause a small dent in her door. We exchange info and go on our way.

I report it to my insurance company as required. I get a call from my adjuster, and the repairs on her car came to $800. A week later, I get a call, the adjuster wants more info, as the lady(?) is demanding $15,000 for injury and mental anguish. I told them if they give her a penny, they are being blackmailed, and that the collision was so insignificant, there was no way she was injured.

Come to find out they gave her an additional $1000 to shut her up. That really ticked me off. I called the insurance company and told them that was a dumb move and many other things.

Over and above causing me to have my rate increased for a year, I dips into the fund for everyone else, eventually raising all rates, because they are so loose in paying out unwarranted payments.


-------------------------
http://easyad.net/images/94vanavitar.jpg http://www.easyad.net/images/mustang1.gif

'94 E-150 Conversion Van 4.9 / C-6 -- '89 Mustang LX 5.0

 

To an insureance company it's a wise move to give them the 1,000. The problem is that you can't prove/disprove an injury. A judge would probably throw out your case but it's expensive for a company to pay a lawyer to visit. Most of the time they will just settle the case, they did that with mine. People are sick these days. The lady i hit got her money i think, 20-30,000. I forget what the term is, but she claimed that she couldn't take care of her family, pain and suffering, the whole 9. I believe here in MA you have to have a certain dollar amount of physicial therapy before you can get money from an insureance company. She racked up 5,000 dollars worth in a week. It's a shame what people do now-a-days.



Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster American Thunder Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.


Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Superduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Top speed is 65mph, Go Baby Go!

 

Mustang GT 221: In response to your first question with regard to the little girl's parents suing the Board of Education for 1st Amendment rights, I think they were probably more insulted than harmed. The First Amendmment is constantly being challanged on the grounds for separation of church and state.

This is a very explosive and debatable issue. Examination of the First Amendment must be made with a reasonable familiarity of those that wrote the amendment and why they included it in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson absolutely hated the Anglican church for its despicable political behavior in the Brittish government. This is why he placed the restriction with regard to the congress "making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". There are two concepts here.
One limits the government in its legislation of establishment of religion, and the other promotes "free exercise", through the restriction of those same laws.

The question then becomes; Does the reading of a religious book in a government school violate that "free exercise"? Does it imply a state sponsored religion? Would a history book that accounts the life and influence of Jesus, in a historical perspective, constitute the same violation? Does a Christmas decoration on a town green imply that the government sponsors Christianity, and further imply that Judiasm is a somewhat lesser important religion in the perspective of that government? These are all questions that are being dealt with in today's American society.

The PC politicians can't come out in favor of any one particular religion, so they tend to fall into the camp that bans all religious activity on any government property. The Board of Education(s) in this country are beholding to the politicians so they have to march lock step with them. Municipal and State governments have to be responsible to the Federal government, and the PC politicians, so they can't challange relgious activity on government grounds either.
So who is left to make these challanges? John Q citizen. This is why you see these type of lawsuits.

The free exercise of religion question is mainly aimed at society in general. I do not think that Jefferson was attempting to promote the concept within the government institutions. I think this is intended more for the practice of religion in society by a free people.

I am not at all certain that any school displaying the 10 commandments, or beginning the day with a prayer, violates the First Amendment but apparently the courts have ruled in favor of the ban so this is what is practiced in American society. The Constitution is a living and working document, so what may be interpreted today, with regard to the First Amendment, may not be valid in perhaps another 50 years. Once again, I think it is prudent to examine, as best we can, Thomas Jefferson's original intent with regard to this Amendment. We can do this by knowing who he was, and the reasoning he used, in creating the amendment.

It is my belief that he relied soley upon his contempt for the Anglican Church, and their historical meddlesome actions in the Brittish government, that led him to create the First Amendment. Plain and simple. He wanted to divorce forever, the influence of any church over the governing body of the United States. It is how this amendment is munipulated by politicians and lawyers that creates the problems in American society today.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that their family was insulted by the incident but, why doesn't it just end there vs being money hungry all the time. If this was several years ago, it would have ended with apologies, now it's lawsuits. I might be wrong but I think the school might have been a catholic school. Otherwise I don't know why the teacher would ask for only christmas books.



Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster American Thunder Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.


Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Superduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Top speed is 65mph, Go Baby Go!

 

Mustang: What am I missing here? Where is the $$$$ in a lawsuit involving the 1st Amendment? Particularly when filed against any school? Is it your contention that the litigants bringing the lawsuit will receive monetary compensation for a breach involving the First Amendment? Perhaps there is money in the notoriety? I don't know, but I doubt that a First Amendment lawsuit would be a money maker for anyone but the lawyers.

Negligence suits involve monetary awards but they can be protracted battles racking up big money in legal bills. The party that brings suit against a defendant in negligence usually retains counsel on a contingency basis for a percentage of the settlement.
This is what usually makes it attractive to potential litigants that hope to secure settlements with no money up front. There is talk of legislation that would require the party that initiates a lawsuit to pay the defendants legal bills should they lose, but I don't know where that stands right now. I think this may be be a good legal reform because it would compel those that file suits to think twice before they jump on the legal gravy train. On the other hand, it may discourage a sincerely wronged party to decline to file out of the fear of losing a just case through legal incompetence. Once again, where do you draw the line.

I think it is with the courts and judges. The tobacco settlements are just an example of corporate theft sanctioned by the courts. There is a new case I heard of just the other day whereby a guy is suing Burger King for ruining his health by feeding him the food he chose to buy! I can just envision the legislation now with regard to the government dictating what type of foods that restaurants can serve the public. Where does it end? Once again, with sensible courts and judges. Perhaps judges need to be elected rather than appointed by politicians. This may take the patronage element out of the courts. No doubt we need court reforms.

I find it very difficult to understand the First Amendment issue you write about happening in a Catholic school. Maybe it was a version of Christmas they did'nt like? Why would a sectarian school disallow religious readings in their classes? It does'nt make much sense. Sounds more like a government school to me.

In offering up a answer of why there are more lawsuits today; the simple fact is that we have more lawyers than ever before. They are going to make a living the way they are trained: to litigate. It is a product of the numbers. It will probably get worse as the law schools continue to churn out more and more lawyers every year.
So hold on to your wallets, and be ever vigilant of your freedom, because these people will practice their trade at any expense.



Brien

 

Mustang, you are missing the point.

The courts, including the Supreme court, have consistently ruled that promoting one religious faith over another is illegal, but equally illegal is discriminating against a religious faith. And that is what the school teacher did: discriminated against that girl based on her religious faith. By permitting the other students to read their books, but prohibiting that girl from reading hers, based only upon the religious content of the book, the teacher displayed religious bias and dicrimination. And THAT is what the courts have declared illegal.

This is the basic crux of the argument. I have no doubt that the school system will settle out of court, not because they don't want to spend the money defending themselves, but because there is such a preponderance of legal precedent in favor of the parents that the school knows it would lose in court.

But there is something in the tone of your post which truly bothers me, and that is that you seem to feel that the parents are in it only for money. While I do not know the motives of the parents, I doubt that money is their prime motivation. Rather, I think that they are standing up to defend their rights, and that of their daughter. The court system in America is designed to be utilized by those who feel they have been wronged, and that is what they are doing. By standing up for their First Amendment rights, they are ultimately helping to defend yours as well. And for that they should be thanked.

 

Ok, well it looks like I am wrong about the catholic school thing. You are right in saying that the teacher was wrong, I agree. I guess my point was that is it really that big of a deal to sue over something so minor? I didn't catch the whole story the first time, I thought I did but I didn't. They interviewed the girl the second time I saw it and she was pretty hurt by it so I guess it makes more sense. I don't know, I made this post becuase I felt that there are a lot of people who seem to be trying to sue other people or companies more often as time passes. They were discussing that Burger King issue on TV as well as on the radio they were mentioning the lady who burned herself from McDonald's coffee a while ago. She put it between her legs in the car and spilled it on herself. She sued because there was no warning that it was hot. Does it take a smart person to figure that it will probably hurt if you spill it on yourself? Also the lady who sued me for claiming injuries. Seems like the society changed where everyone is after money. People defy friends and family to get money. Recently with stories i've heard, it stuck out a little more so I thought i'd make a post to see how you all think on the subject. Now, since I saw the whole interview, I think my school example was a bad one. I was brought up differently, I was brought up not to do those kinds of things. My mom fell infront of a store where the steps were slippery. She could of sued the store and put them out of business (it was a small store). She wasn't seriously hurt, she broke her wrist. I was raised where it would be a wrong thing to do to sue if not totally nessessary.


Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster American Thunder Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.


Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Superduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Top speed is 65mph, Go Baby Go!

 

Mustang: You probably did choose the wrong example for what you are trying to illustrate here in this thread. I think you are making your point however.

I thought about the Mc Donalds case and chose not to use it in my example because even though the woman knew the coffee was hot, she had no reasonable expectation it would be so hot as to burn, or even scald her. Perhaps Mc Donalds had SOME shared liability because they had their coffee machine set too hot. I am not exonerating the woman for being careless and foolish in her actions, but rather suggesting that Mc Donalds may have some responsibility in the matter. I further, do not think that a Million dollar plus settlement is justified. Remember, if someone sues for a million dollars, it does'nt necessarily mean that is what they settle for. In fact, most cases settle far below the initial amount asked for in the suit.

The problem with your mother, and the slip resulting in the broken wrist, may be a shared responsibitility as well. Perhaps the shopkeeper should bear some responsibility for the mishap. Were the steps slippery due to the shopkeeper's negligence, or did you mother carelessly tread the steps? Perhaps it is a combination of the two? Did the shopkeeper offer to mitigate the medical bills and/or other damages. If this is the case, then fine, your mother should be whole. However, if she had to bear the cost of medicine, treatment, lost work time, and other out of pocket expenses, then she should have considered a lawsuit. Why should your mother, or her insurance company, bear the cost of the negligence of the shopkeeper? I also sensed you feel that because it is a small business that somehow liability should be deemed somewhat less than a large corporation.

This should never be the case as we would then create a justice system tailored to the size of the monetary worth of the defendant. This is not equal justice under the law. The small shopkeeper carries insurance just as the large corporation does. The issue of deep pockets is immoral and unjust. I think the tobacco suits proved that. They were just an example of a government, through court sanctioned actions, raiding the coffers of large corporations in order to shake them down for a settlement that had nothing to due with regard to health issues. Look where the tobacco money from the settlements has gone. Surely not to the people who the government claimed harmed by tobacco. It is being spent on totally unrelated expenditures in all 50 state legislatures. It is shameful proof of what the government really wanted to accomplish. No, we as a society, need to have one justice system for all.

However, in some cases, lawsuits are necessary to make people whole again. This means they must be returned to the state in their lives before an accident happens. And if they can't be made whole again, then this is where monetary settlements make up for the loss.
It is the amount of the monetary settlement that we sometimes object to, not the settlement in kind. Juries can agree to assign liability and award a plaintiff a set amount of money, but sometimes that amount of money is unjustified for the amount of the loss. This is a dilemma for the jury and not for the judges. However, sometimes judges can correct a settlement that they feel is unwarranted. It can go either way.

I agree with your underlying premise that we seem to have too much litigation in the American society today, but this is a fact of reality. Some states have put caps upon negligence settlements, but it still seems to be a crazy, lawsuit happy, American court system. I pointed out in my last post that in some places, if you bring suit and lose, you as the plaintiff, pay the legal costs of the defendant. This has its pros and cons. One thing is certain; we do need legal reforms in this country. The legislative bodies need to step up to the political plate and accomplish those necessary reforms. Politicians need to ignore the influence of the Trial Lawyers Association, and get down to the real business of legal reform, without the undue influences that this lobby exerts upon our legal legislative issues. Citizens need to pressure their representatives to accomplish these reforms or vote them out of office.

Remember, nothing can be changed unless we as citizens work toward that change. It starts in the voting booth and culminates in the legislature. Our representatives should be beholding to the populace, not a well funded lobbyist, to direct the course of action for our country.

Sorry for the lenghty post but this is a complex issue.

Vote early and vote often:

 

Yeah, it is a rather large issue. My mom just went to the doctor but nothing major, I assume insurance covered it, it wasn't severe. It happened a long time ago and I don't remember the details. If I remember correctly it was not due to my mothers negligence, there was snow and ice on the steps and she slipped. They weren't cleaned off and salted. I think the reason she didn't sue when she could have was that it wasn't a big deal. To her it wasn't worth the trouble even though she could have gotten some money. If it's justified by injuries than, sure you should be reimbursed but if it's something minor, I think more often these days we see people that don't let it go like my mom did.




Primary rig is Green Thunder:
95' F-150 XLT 4x4, 302, 5 spd, MSD 6A, Flowmaster American Thunder Exhaust, Sunroof, Clear corners w/ Diamond headlights, CD player with 2 10" subs and some 32" BFG Muds .

Check out my Gallery for a look-see.

Then theres:
99' Mustang GT 4.6L
88' F-250 Heavyduty 4x4 351/c6
95' Mercury Cougar 4.6L V-8
80' E-350 300/6 with a
3 spd column shifter. Weighs around 7,000lbs w. 65mph top speed, who wants to race me!

 

Like me at a big grocery store two weeks ago.

Picture a 5 foot square cardboard box 3 ft high full of watermelon's.
I had just lifted one out and took ONE step toward my shopping cart when my toe got caught on the wooden pallet that the box was sitting on.

The watermelon went flying through the air ,hit the floor and SPLAT,
all over the place, I travelled in the same direction only stumbling with my face pointing downward. The only thing that help me stay on my feet was to grab the shoppping cart. Doing so, scrapped my hands and causing extreme pain for an hour.

The manager came running over and couldn't do enough make sure I was Okay,and then he actually said:"This the 3rd time, that this has happened".I couldn't refrain from asking him "why don't you do something about it then"?
(Insert Huge Dumb Look on his face here)

I felt like an idiot tripping on this thing even though it wasn't that noticeable that there was slime right at that spot.

The biggest problem was, I NOW had to find another Perfect watermelon to buy.

The manager said go ahead pick one and I'll have one of the grocery clerks to carry it to the car for you.


http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/2cents.gif

[font color=red]Dennis

FTE Assistant Administrator
[/font]

[link: motorhaven.autoanything.com|How YOU Can Support This Site]

http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/canada_flag_animated.gif

[link:www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Mil1ion.html|My Website,"North Of The 49th"]

[link:www.ford-trucks.com/guidelines.html|Club FTE]
http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Minimorleytruck.JPG
[font color=blue]78 F-150 429CJ,Silver,Explorer Pkg.
64 1/2 Mustang Pre-World's Fair Car #8092
68-Mustang 289 2v-Sunlit Gold
[/font]

 

Dennis: The only "melonhead" in this instance is the store manager. He was admitting his liability and negligence in all of the same sentence! What is worse, he is also irresponsible for allowing such a display. How does anybody, but the most able in body, retrieve a melon from such a display safely? What could he be thinking? I have never heard of such a dangerous display, not even in Home Depot. He must have some kind of warehouse vision for his store. And then, to see the same accidental occurance three times in a row. Wow, that guy must surely have something else on his mind, and it is not safety and convenience.

Why in God's name does a "big grocery" store pile watermelons in a 5' high cardboard box on a pallet. Because it comes off the truck like that and it saves labor to rework the display. Well this store lucked out when you chose not to pursue a lawsuit. After my initial reaction of anger, I think I would have chalked it up to experience as well, however I am sure there are many people that would have milked that one for a few thousand dollars.

Man, you should'nt have go shopping with armour, chain mail and helmet. I am glad to learn that you were not seriously injured. I guess we all must be aware of our surroundings, and be on guard against the dangerous traps set by others, in our normal daily lives.


Brien Pax vobis ***.